I stopped reading when he said "Caucuses, unlike primaries, really are exercises in organization. Witness Kerry's victory in Iowa in 2004." Um, actually, that shows the opposite. As stated by every single news story written at the time, Dean and Gephardt were the ones with the most impressive Iowa organizations. But they got buried by Kerry and Edwards because the unusually high turnout (high by the standards of the Iowa caucuses) led to the universe of caucus goers expanding to include folks who wouldn't normally attend caucuses. By all accounts, Edwards had the *weakest* IA organization among the four major '04 candidates, and he still finished a strong second.

I think Warner could give her a run for her money. He doesnt have the name of ID of a Gore, Obama, or Edwards, but he does have a huge fundraising base of rich IT executives. And if need be, he could always self finance. Afterall, the guy is worth 200 million+

Let's get the ball rolling!! I'm ready to roll up my sleeves and get down and dirty for some nasty mudslinging. I will probably actively campaign for Mark Warner, somewhat active for John Kerry, and mostly passive for Hillary Clinton.

So, since tomorrow is Wednesday, September 20, 2006, the 2008 Presidential Campaign officially begins in 7 weeks on Wednesday, November 8, 2006, Eastern Standard Time, when the last poll in Hawaii or Alaska closes.

My earlier comment notwithstanding, I do think that the site would be better off if Inks left his position. (The fact that the village idiot has dropped in to express his support for him only confirms this.)

Why do so many of you seem to think that Hillary's a near shoe-in for the nomination? Didn't we have a poll in this forum not long ago in which the question was asked who you thought was most likely to win the Dem nomination, and Hillary came in third place (with Warner first)? Is it because of this "$100 million" figure?

It says that Dean raised $40 million in 2003, which put him ahead of all of his Democratic rivals, though of course he ended up losing. However, at the time that Kerry started pulling even with Dean in the polls in Iowa and New Hampshire, several pundits suggested that the fact that Kerry's campaign was able to borrow $ from Kerry's own fortune allowed him to keep up with Dean in terms of cash on hand, and this contributed to his victory.

Fortunately we aren't like the Republicans; we don't automatically nominate the front runner or the person whose "turn" it is or the one who is favored by the party establishment. Races for Democratic nominations are inherently more unpredictable.

The next 28 months (through January 20, 2009) are going to be exciting for me looking at all the races in the country from a Democratic viewpoint rather than a Republican viewpoint. Then, the first term of the 44th President will be very exciting critiquing the administration from a Democratic viewpoint rather than a Republican viewpoint.

Hillary is definitely not a shoe-in, but she has to be considered a front-runner right now, if only for name recognition. Nym90 is right, the Democratic primary contests don't become clear until at least March or April before the election, (2004 was a bit different), whereas Republicans seem to nominate their candidate the summer after the mid-terms, which provides for way less drama and way less excitement. That is good strategy for the Republicans, though, because it does give the candidate more time to prepare for the general election than the Democrat candidate.

My earlier comment notwithstanding, I do think that the site would be better off if Inks left his position. (The fact that the village idiot has dropped in to express his support for him only confirms this.)

What is good news for us, is bad news for Bill. Now he has to live with her for 2 more years. The divorce will have to wait.

He doesn't live with her now. There's no reason for them to get divorced because they're each getting what they want out of their arrangement. It's a business-political partnership, and he's free to pursue other "interests" as is she, so they're probably both happy. All they need do is appear in public together once a month or so. That's less than Joan Kennedy did for Ted during his abortive run at the Democratic nomination in 1980.

Fortunately we aren't like the Republicans; we don't automatically nominate the front runner or the person whose "turn" it is or the one who is favored by the party establishment. Races for Democratic nominations are inherently more unpredictable.

Nym90 is right, the Democratic primary contests don't become clear until at least March or April before the election, (2004 was a bit different), whereas Republicans seem to nominate their candidate the summer after the mid-terms, which provides for way less drama and way less excitement.

I don't understand what you mean. The basic arc for both parties' nomination races seems to always play out in pretty much the same way: A year before the primaries, there's a frontrunner, who everyone seems to think will be tough to beat, but then somewhere along the course of the campaign (either in the fall of the year before the election, or in the primaries themselves), that frontrunner starts to face a serious challenge, though *usually* not enough that they lose.

In 1992 cycle, wasn't Clinton widely considered to be the frontrunner for the Dem nomination, once it became clear that the big names like Cuomo and Gephardt wouldn't run? Clinton stumbled badly over personal issues like Gennifer Flowers, and for a while it looked like Tsongas might win, but Clinton still won in the end. In the 1996 cycle, Dole was the early frontrunner, but was then seriously challenged by the rising popularity of Forbes in late '95, and Buchanan's surprisingly strong showings in IA and NH, but Dole still won. In '00, Gore was the early frontrunner for the Dems, but Bradley surged into the lead in NH polls in the fall of '99, though Gore ended up coming back and winning both IA and NH, at which point Bradley could never regain any momentum. And on the GOP side in '00, Bush was the early frontrunner, and his mammoth war chest and lead in the polls led to half of the field dropping out of the race by the end of 1999, but then you had the rising tide of McCain, who stunned Bush with a 17 point victory in NH. Bush still came back to win in the end.

The recent case where this pattern played out in a very strange way was in the '04 election cycle, where (once Gore announced that he wouldn't run), Kerry became the early frontrunner. But he was eclipsed by Dean in the summer of '03, and suddenly Dean was the frontrunner. But Dean had a spectacular meltdown *right before the Iowa caucus*, and Kerry ended up winning it after all.

I don't think the Republicans are somehow programmed to rally around the frontrunner early, and never give it a second though, while the Democrats are destined to always engage in a primary bloodbath. I think it's just the case that in recent elections, the Republicans have more frequently happened to have a strong frontrunner early on. This time around, I don't think either party has anyone who's nearly as well positioned as Bush and Gore were in late 1998. Clinton and McCain may be their parties' respective frontrunners, but they are nowhere close to being as strong as Bush and Gore were back then. They are both like Kerry was at the end of 2002--the nominal frontrunner, but weak enough that there's still a good chance that they'll lose their respective party nominations.

Right now this is shaping up to be Hillary vs. Gore or Hillary vs. Feingold. Should Gore run, he will win the nomination. Feingold will only be a contender if Gore does not run. Edwards comes in second as anti-Hillary.

Mark Warner has no chance. He is unable to inspire passion in the Kossites and the argument that "he's the most electable" never goes down well with them. He is not attractive or charismatic and sounds too much like this guy: http://www.oddtodd.com/index2.htmlIf the war in Iraq suddenly ended and it ceased to be an issue, then he might have a chance, but right now anti-war is all the Dems want to hear.

In the end, I predict that it'll come down to a showdown between Hillary and Feingold / Gore. The Republican nominee will be either Giuliani or Romney. Bank on it.

Nym90 is right, the Democratic primary contests don't become clear until at least March or April before the election, (2004 was a bit different), whereas Republicans seem to nominate their candidate the summer after the mid-terms, which provides for way less drama and way less excitement.

I don't understand what you mean. The basic arc for both parties' nomination races seems to always play out in pretty much the same way: A year before the primaries, there's a frontrunner, who everyone seems to think will be tough to beat, but then somewhere along the course of the campaign (either in the fall of the year before the election, or in the primaries themselves), that frontrunner starts to face a serious challenge, though *usually* not enough that they lose.

In 1992 cycle, wasn't Clinton widely considered to be the frontrunner for the Dem nomination, once it became clear that the big names like Cuomo and Gephardt wouldn't run? Clinton stumbled badly over personal issues like Gennifer Flowers, and for a while it looked like Tsongas might win, but Clinton still won in the end. In the 1996 cycle, Dole was the early frontrunner, but was then seriously challenged by the rising popularity of Forbes in late '95, and Buchanan's surprisingly strong showings in IA and NH, but Dole still won. In '00, Gore was the early frontrunner for the Dems, but Bradley surged into the lead in NH polls in the fall of '99, though Gore ended up coming back and winning both IA and NH, at which point Bradley could never regain any momentum. And on the GOP side in '00, Bush was the early frontrunner, and his mammoth war chest and lead in the polls led to half of the field dropping out of the race by the end of 1999, but then you had the rising tide of McCain, who stunned Bush with a 17 point victory in NH. Bush still came back to win in the end.

The recent case where this pattern played out in a very strange way was in the '04 election cycle, where (once Gore announced that he wouldn't run), Kerry became the early frontrunner. But he was eclipsed by Dean in the summer of '03, and suddenly Dean was the frontrunner. But Dean had a spectacular meltdown *right before the Iowa caucus*, and Kerry ended up winning it after all.

I don't think the Republicans are somehow programmed to rally around the frontrunner early, and never give it a second though, while the Democrats are destined to always engage in a primary bloodbath. I think it's just the case that in recent elections, the Republicans have more frequently happened to have a strong frontrunner early on. This time around, I don't think either party has anyone who's nearly as well positioned as Bush and Gore were in late 1998. Clinton and McCain may be their parties' respective frontrunners, but they are nowhere close to being as strong as Bush and Gore were back then. They are both like Kerry was at the end of 2002--the nominal frontrunner, but weak enough that there's still a good chance that they'll lose their respective party nominations.

I just mean that most of the time the Republicans seem to decide on a nominee a good six-nine months before the convention. I do agree with you that in 2008, it will probably take a little bit longer for the Republicans to find someone they can run with. I still expect us to know the nominees of both parties by the middle of April 2008 which is just shy of 7 months before the general election.

My earlier comment notwithstanding, I do think that the site would be better off if Inks left his position. (The fact that the village idiot has dropped in to express his support for him only confirms this.)